Reverse Hatred, Steve Wessler and the New Totalitarians

August 19th, 2008

mike_heath_10_commandments.JPGMike Heath of the Christian Civic League of Maine is a committed Christian who –like millions upon millions of pro-family Americans — opposes homosexual practice and all sex outside marriage. But to social leftists like Steve Wessler, Heath is an extreme “hater” whose views should not even be published in a major newspaper. Can we afford to let the anti-Christian Left become the arbiter of “hate” in America?

“[I]rresponsible and biased speech legitimizes extreme prejudice.” – Steve Wessler, Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Catching up on unpublished stories here: I sent a version of the following letter May 6 to Steve Wessler, executive director of a liberal outfit called the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence in Portland, Maine — in response to his April 26 column in the Portland Press-Herald advocating that this major newspaper gag my friend (and AFTAH Board Chairman) Mike Heath. The Left aspires to be the arbiter of “hate” in our society, but their absurd, radical and, yes, hateful arguments equating pro-family Americans with anti-Semites and racists — even slavery advocates — constitute a form of reverse-hatred. If the Left’s non-diverse “diversity” ideology ever gets full backing by the government here in the United States, it would be used to criminalize Christian practice, as is already happening in Canada and Great Britain.

Social conservatives need to wake up to the escalating threat to freedom that comes from arrogant, absolutist ideologues on the hard Left. If we fail to answer the poisonous smear-attacks by anti-religious activists like Wessler (e.g., labelling groups like the Christian Civic League of Maine and AFTAH “hate groups”), we will lose our freedoms as America inches toward the brand of left-wing totalitarianism found in Europe and Canada.

Truth is, nobody hates and itches to censor others like the Left, but Wessler and his ilk rely on intimidation tactics and the media’s help to silence debate and box conservative voices out of the public square.

Morality is not prejudice, and defending the time-tested Judeo-Christian sexual ethic is not “hate.” (If you warn your children against doing something that is wrong and potentially harmful to their health, and which could alienate them from God, do you “hate” them?) Equating sincere Christians and conservative citizens with racist and anti-Semitic practices of the past is one of the Pro-Homosexual Left’s most insidious tactics.

Read the rest of this article »

Send Article to a Friend

Family of Slain Homosexual Boy Larry King Blames School

August 16th, 2008

The case of Larry King is a horrible tragedy, which homosexual activists have sought to exploit to crusade for “hate crimes” laws. Now the victim’s parents are complicating the GLBT Lobby’s campaign; if they succeed, it will send a message to schools everywhere not to pander to politically correct activism on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” –Peter LaBarbera

Family of Slain Homosexual Boy Blames School
Friday, August 15, 2008
CNSNews.com

By Wire Dispatches, Associated Press

Ventura, Calif. (AP) - The family of a gay teenager who was fatally shot in class blames the school district for allowing their son to wear makeup and feminine clothing to school - factors the family claims led to the death.

The parents and brother of 15-year-old Larry King of Oxnard filed a personal injury claim against the Hueneme school district seeking unspecified damages for not enforcing the dress code.

King, an eighth-grader at E.O. Green Junior High School, was shot in February. Classmate Brandon McInerney pleaded not guilty to the shooting last week. He was charged as an adult and also faces a charge of a committing a hate crime.

The family’s claim, filed last week in Ventura County Superior Court, said administrators and teachers failed to enforce the school’s dress code when King wore feminine clothing and makeup to school.

His parents, Dawn and Gregory King, said faculty members knew their son had “unique vulnerabilities” and was subject to abuse because of his sexual orientation.

Click HERE for the rest of the story

Send Article to a Friend

Will Homosexual Activist ‘christians’ Admit that They Hate God’s Moral Law on Sex?

August 16th, 2008

Does God have the right to oppose homosexual behavior?

The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community. — Peter LaBarbera

Note to hostile “gay” activist:

You worry about getting your gay allies in San Francisco to stop having sex in the streets, then you can deal with Zombietime, which is a non-Christian site that exposes all the nutty goings-on re: that World Famous Gay Mecca — and which exposed the San Francisco depravities just as they were. That’s called documenting heinous public perversions — not “porn.”

Read the rest of this article »

Send Article to a Friend

AFA: McDonald’s Does It Again — Sponsoring Homosexual Activism ‘from the Inside’

August 15th, 2008

ronald_mcdonald_rainbow2.jpgThe following E-Alert was sent out by American Family Association:

Take Action!

• Sign the online Boycott McDonald’s petition.
• Forward this to family and friends and ask them to sign the petition.
• Print and distribute the Boycott McDonald’s petition.

August 13, 2008

McDonald’s has done it again. First, the company paid $20,000 to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and to have a seat on the board of directors. Next, McDonald’s refused a request to remain neutral in the culture war by choosing to promote the gay agenda. Then McDonald’s accused those opposing the gay agenda, including same-sex “marriage,” of being motivated by hate.

Now we learn that McDonald’s sponsors training for homosexuals on how to promote their agenda among corporations from the inside. Out & Equal™ Workplace Advocates is a national organization devoted to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the workplace. One of its primary purposes is to train employees how to aggressively promote homosexuality within the company they work for, all the way to the corporate boardroom. Part of last year’s Out & Equal Summit in Washington, DC, (sponsored by McDonald’s) was an organized march into congressional offices demanding same-sex “marriage” laws be passed.

Read the rest of this article »

Send Article to a Friend

Respecting Homosexuals

August 13th, 2008

Respecting people does not mean accepting bad behavior

By Thorin Anderson, Illinois Family Institute, 7/30/08

Whenever there is conflict between homosexual activists and conservatives regarding the issues such as the acceptance of same-sex “marriage,” we on the right are accused of lacking respect for homosexuals.

But, I would like to make one thing clear. The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior. There are many human behaviors which we conservatives believe to be unacceptable. They range from lying and cheating to promiscuity before or during marriage. They include murder and rape and a host of other deeds, criminal or otherwise. To say that we don’t respect someone when we disagree with their conduct is to suggest that confronting any bad behavior is inherently disrespectful. Are we to stop speaking about all wrong conduct? Should we stop confronting lying, stealing, or murder? Such a suggestion would be ludicrous.

All humans are worthy of respect as humans, period. But it is utter folly to imagine that behaviors people engage in are automatically respectable simply because a certain number of people are involved in them. Sad to say, many things we human beings do are not only unworthy of respect, but are destructive and dangerous. There is a reason why no one writes in any detail, in public, regarding the activities of homosexuals. And there is a reason why homosexuals have significantly shorter than average life expectancies. There is not a newspaper in the country that would detail their private conduct, and most of our stomachs could not handle it. Yet, we are told we MUST accept such conduct as perfectly normal. Get out your Webster’s and look up “normal.” Homosexuality in no way fits the definition of “normal.” And, it requires no special genius to understand that!

Read the rest of this article »

Send Article to a Friend

Pelosi Backs Obama on Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

August 13th, 2008

DOMA law protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages”

nancy_pelosi_smaller.jpgHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is a Catholic, yet she is an ardent proponent of homosexual activism and abortion-on-demand — both opposed by the Church. Pelosi’s San Francisco district allows men to walk completely nude in public and have homosexual orgies on city streets.

CNSNews.com reports:

Pelosi Backs Obama on Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

August 01, 2008

By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – If Barack Obama is elected president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will support him in fulfilling his vow to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which currently protects states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states as they ordinarily would be required to do by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

“Yes,” Pelosi said Thursday at a press conference, when CNSNews.com asked if she would support Obama’s policy. Hear CNS Audio HERE.

The DOMA defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws. Signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, the DOMA protects states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states.

Ordinarily, under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the Constitution, states are required to recognize “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

The “pride” section of the Obama campaign Web site reads: “Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”

Read the rest of this article »

Send Article to a Friend

Letter: 40-Foot Wall Around San Francisco?

August 11th, 2008

wall.jpg Needed in Sodom-by-the-Bay, aka San Francisco?

Folks, we’ve received a lot of reaction to our e-mail and web article last week highlighting the incredible “Zombietime” web report on San Francisco’s sadistic “Up Your Alley” street fair — just like last year when we exposed its twin event, the Folsom Street Fair. (Click HERE to go to the secular Zombietime story, describing public perversions that could ONLY emerge from the “gay liberation” movement; WARNING: IT’S APPALLINGLY GRAPHIC (and evil).

nancy_pelosi_smaller.jpg Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — beloved by “gay” activists for her pro-homosexual activism — could use her clout to demand an end to the government-protected street orgies and public nudity in the city she represents; why won’t she?

While our pathetically predictable homosexual critics played their usual game of “Kill the Messenger” (us), even AFTAH readers — far better informed on the homosexual agenda and GLBT lifestyles than most Americans — were stunned by the public depravities. And many people, like L.B. below, are asking how it is that they were allowed to go on by Democratic-led city officials and the San Francisco P.D.:

Question: Can we build a 40-foot wall around that city, and toss food and penicillin over the top? Seriously, how was this event advertised or publicized (exclusively for certain people or everyone is welcome)? Also, how do the \’event coordinators\’ bypass the law? How do they get permission to engage in such behaviors in public? Why are the police instructed to contain but not to arrest? — L.B., writing via the AFTAH website, 8-8-08

Send Article to a Friend

Judge Upholds Redefined, Biased California Prop 8 Marriage Amendment Language

August 8th, 2008

Pro-family attorneys to challenge ruling on AG Jerry Brown’s biased summary language

jerry_brown-2.jpgCalifornia Attorney General Jerry Brown redefined the state’s pro-traditional marriage amendment description as taking away people’s rights — even though the so-called “right” to “same-sex marriage” as created by the state’s high court will be only a few months old when voters go to the polls in in November.

From the news site OneNewsNow of the American Family Association:

Judge upholds redefined Prop. 8 ballot language

By Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 8/8/2008
Click HERE to listen to the audio story on OneNewsNow

Pro-family attorneys are vowing to go back to court to get biased, pro-homosexual language removed from the ballot title and summary for the California marriage protection amendment.

The amendment states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” But somehow, Attorney General Jerry Brown reinterpreted that as eliminating “the right of same-sex couples to marry.” Timothy Chandler, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was in Superior Court in California Thursday arguing that Brown’s editorializing is illegal.

“The issue before the voters is whether or not California should define marriage as between one man and one woman,” Chandler explains. “And rather than presenting it that way to the voters, the attorney general got political with it.”

Instead of providing a neutral and unbiased ballot title and summary, says the ADF attorney, Brown bowed to “political pressure” and “gave a biased and prejudicial summary” — in effect failing to follow his obligation under state law. “The attorney general is required by law to provide an objective summary of what the proposition would do to the law,” Chandler explains.

But the Superior Court disagreed Friday, ruling that Brown was within his rights to define the amendment as taking away rights, even though those alleged rights were only recently created by the California Supreme Court.

Read the rest of this article »

Send Article to a Friend


Click Here to Support AFTAH!

Americans for Truth
P.O. Box 5522
Naperville, IL 60567-5522




Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?

If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.